This action involves allegations of environmental contamination allegedly originating on Plaintiff AVX Corporation's (AVX) Myrtle Beach, South Carolina plant site and migrating to land owned by Defendant Horry Land Company, Inc. It appears that AVX discovered contamination in the early 1980s and retained counsel. Thereafter, an environmental consultant(s) was engaged and testing and clean-up activities were pursued. In 1995, AVX notified the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) of the contamination. AVX presented to DHEC a report dated June 20, 1995, prepared by an environmental consulting firm, Geraghty Miller, Inc. (G M). The report indicates AVX discovered and monitored contamination on its site in the early 1980s and thereafter evaluated and conducted cleanup activities through the date of the report. The report recommended monitoring and remedial measures going forward.

In the present case, AVX seeks to recover certain response costs associated with the said contamination pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et. seq. and for a declaration of liability pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Horry Land Company filed a counterclaim, alleging causes of action based upon, among others, negligence and trespass. Presently before the Court are AVX's Motion for Protective Order (Document # 109) and Defendant Horry Land Company's Motion to Compel (Document # 137). This matter has been referred to the undersigned for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Nature of the Dispute

In AVX's original Motion for Protective Order, it sought protection from certain questions posed by counsel for Horry Land Company during the depositions of two AVX employees, Larry Blue and Dennis Oldland, the responses to which, AVX argued, would require the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and/or the self-evaluation privilege. AVX also seeks protection from producing documents it claims are protected by those same privileges.

In it's Motion to Compel, Horry Land Company seeks the production of the documents AVX seeks to protect. In its first Request for Production of Documents, in Request number two, Horry Land Company seeks "Any and all statements, reports, analyses, studies, letters, correspondence, memoranda, records or notations of conversations or conferences or other documentation that you will utilize during the course of the proceedings of this action or at trial." In Request number five, Horry Land Company seeks "A copy of any and all handling procedures promulgated or utilized by Plaintiff with regards to the use and storage of TCE at its facility located on 17th Avenue South in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina." In Request number 6, Horry Land Company seeks, "A copy of any and all documents that show, imply or support the positions that some or all of the TCE contamination found on Defendant's property originated from an entity other than AVX or from a property not under the control of Plaintiff."

In its second Request for Production of Documents, in Request number 1, Horry Land Company seeks "All files maintained by Plaintiff of any of its employees or agents regarding the discovery, investigation, and remediation of trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), 1,2-dichloroethane, and related chlorinated VOCs contamination at Plaintiff's facility located in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina." In Request number 2, it seeks "Any and all documents regarding the removal of contaminated soil from Plaintiff's Myrtle Beach facility; including but without limitation documents showing date of removal, amount of removal, reasons for removal, persons removing and disposition of removal material." In Request number 4, it seeks "Any and all documents, including but not limited to, photographs, internal reports and reports to governmental agencies, which concern the release of contaminants resulting from the bursting or destruction of a pipe during the excavation of soils at Plaintiff's Myrtle Beach facility."

AVX objects to these document requests, arguing, as stated above, that the documents sought by Horry Land Company are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and the common law and statutory self-evaluation privileges. AVX also objects to producing communications with insurance companies. It argues that, in addition to the protections provided by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and the statutory and common law audit privileges, insurance documents enjoy additional protections.

On September 27, 2010, the undersigned entered an Order (Document # 176) finding the common law self-evaluation privilege inapplicable and directing Plaintiff to produce copies of the redacted documents and the withheld documents (collectively, "the documents at issue") for an in camera review. AVX has presented approximately 2,500 pages of documents for review, some of which have been disclosed in redacted form and some withheld completely. The documents disclosed in redacted form are labeled AVXRED00001-AVXRED01524. The documents withheld completely are labeled AVXPRIV00001-AVXPRIV01025.

Along with its in camera production of documents to the court, AVX also identifies three categories of documents that AVX asserts Horry Land Company has agreed are protected. These include (1) documents in AVX's file prepared by AVX's counsel, Wyche Burgess, and communications between AVX and its counsel, Wyche Burgess, (2) documents in AVX's file prepared by AVX's counsel, Nixon Hargrave, and communications between AVX and its counsel, Nixon Hargrave, and (3) documents in AVX's file prepared by AVX's counsel Parker, Poe, Adams Bernstein, LLP and communications between AVX and its counsel, Parker, Poe, Adams Bernstein, LLP. AVX has not presented the documents falling within these three categories for in camera review and Horry Land Company has not objected. See Privilege Log submitted to court with documents at issue (attached as an Exhibit) ("As AVX understands, AVX and Horry Land are in agreement that all documents involving the law firm of Parker Poe Adams Bernstein[,] . . . involving communications between the law firms of Wyche, Burgess or Nixon Hargrave or Nixon Peabody, on one hand, and AVX, on the other, [and] . . . all internal law firm communications are protected.").
AVX also identifies a fourth category of documents: communications regarding law firm consultant invoices. AVX produced only a "sampling" of these documents to the court for incamera review but states that, if the court holds that this category of documents should be produced, it will produce all documents within this category to Horry Land Company.

The redacted portion of the disclosed documents and the withheld documents include information and communications involving employees of AVX, environmental consultants from one of several environmental consulting firms, attorneys retained by AVX and/or employees of the attorneys retained by AVX, and others. Some of the documents involve communications with an insurance company. The issues before the court are whether AVX has met its burden of establishing that the documents at issue are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or the self-evaluation privilege set forth in the South Carolina Environmental Audit Privilege and Voluntary Disclosure Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 48-57-30(A).

B. Privilege Log

Before addressing the various protections AVX asserts are applicable to the documents at issue, it is necessary to discuss the requirement that a privilege log be submitted by any party objecting to the production of documents based upon a privilege or other protection. Rule 26(b)(5)(A) provides:

When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged . . ., the party must:

(i) expressly make the claim; and

(ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed- and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A).

Generalized claims of privilege are insufficient. Richardson v. Sexual Assault/Spouse Abuse Research Center, Inc., No. MJG-09-3404, 2010 WL 4290327, *5 (D.Md. Oct. 28, 2010). To comply with the requirements set forth in Rule 26(b)(5)(A), a party seeking protection from producing documents must produce a privilege log that "identifies each document withheld, information regarding the nature of the privilege/protection claimed, the name of the person making/receiving the communication, the date and place of the communication, and the document's general subject matter." Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251, 264 (D.Md. 2008). The party asserting the privilege "must identify the elements of the applicable privilege and demonstrate that each element is present for each document for which they claim the existence of a privilege." Richardson, 2010 WL 4290327, *5 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A)(I)).

It is undisputed that AVX failed to produce a privilege log along with its objections to Horry Land Company's requests for production of documents. AVX agreed to provide the privilege log after Horry Land Company filed its original Motion to Compel. The privilege log, dated March 20, 2009, lists the date of each document, to whom and from whom it was sent, and a brief description of the document. On September 27, 2010, the court ordered AVX to revise its privilege log dated March 20, 2009, (Document # 175) to include the bates-stamp numbers for each entry on the privilege log and to provide the revised log along with the documents listed therein for an incamera review. The privilege log does not identify the privilege asserted for each document. Rather, AVX appears to assert that every privilege or protection addressed in its briefs to the court, that is, attorney-client privilege, work product protection, and the statutory and common-law self evaluation privileges, applies to every document listed on the privilege log. AVX's failure to identify the elements of the applicable privilege and demonstrate that each element is present for each document renders the privilege log insufficient because it does not allow Horry Land Company or the court to make an individualized determination as whether each document is protected from discovery. See Neuberger Berman Real Estate Income Fund, Inc. v. Lola Brown Trust No. 1b, 230 F.R.D. 398, 406 (D.Md. 2005) ("The standard for testing the adequacy of a privilege log is whether, as to each document, it sets forth facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish each element of the privilege or immunity that is claimed."). Further, it is noted that, in many instances, the privilege log lists the recipients of a document as an attorney first and then an employee of AVX when the document is actually directed to the AVX employee and is simply copied to the attorney. Also, some descriptions identify the documents as handwritten notes concerning impressions of counsel when the notes are actually those of a non-attorney employee of a law firm, fax cover sheets that do not communicate any information are incorrectly identified, as well as other incorrect or inadequate entries on the privilege log.

This privilege log was filed with the court on September 27, 2010 (Document # 175).

Failure to produce a timely or sufficient privilege log may constitute a forfeiture of any claims of privilege. See Herbalife Int'l, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., No. 5:05CV41, 2006 WL 2715164, at *4 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 22, 2006) ("Failure to timely produce a privilege log or the production of an inadequate privilege log may constitute waiver of any asserted privileges."); Ruran v. Beth El Temple of W. Hartford, Inc., 226 F.R.D. 165, 168-69 (D.Conn. 2005) (finding attorney-client privilege waived because defendant failed to provide a privilege log and consequently failed to perfect privilege claim); Banks v. Office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, 222 F.R.D. 7, 20-21 (D.D.C. 2004) ("withholding of such a privilege log may . . . be viewed by the court as a waiver of any privilege or protection"). AVX did not produce a privilege log along with its objections to Horry Land Company's discovery requests. Furthermore, once the privilege log was produced, it was insufficient for the reasons discussed above. It is not the duty of the court to sift through the numerous documents presented and attempt to discern which privileges or protections may apply to any given document or portion of a document. Thus, Horry Land Company's Motion to Compel should be granted (and AVX's Motion for Protective Order denied) for this reason alone. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, Horry Land Company's Motion to Compel is granted (and AVX's Motion for Protective Order denied) on the merits as well.

C. Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege protects "confidential disclosures by a client to an attorney made in order to obtain legal assistance." Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976). The Fourth Circuit has adopted the following test for determining whether the attorney-client privilege exists:

The privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client.

Hawkins v. Stables, 148 F.3d 379, 383 (4th Cir. 1998) (quotingUnited States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir. 1982) (quoting United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-59 (D.Mass. 1950))). "The burden is on the proponent of the attorney-client privilege to demonstrate its applicability."United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir. 1982).

Because this case is based upon a federal cause of action, the court must apply "`the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience.'" Hawkins, 148 F.3d at 382 (citing Fed.R.Evid. 501).

The attorney-client privilege is designed to "encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice." Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981). The privilege "protects `not only the giving of professional advice to those who can act on it but also the giving of information to the lawyer . . .,'" Hanson v. U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 372 F.3d 286, 291 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 390, 101 S.Ct. 677), and the gathering of information by the attorney,In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 602 (4^th Cir. 1997), to enable him to give informed advice.

Because its application interferes with "the truth seeking mission of the legal process," United States v. Tedder, 801 F.2d 1437, 1441 (4th Cir. 1986), however, the attorney-client privilege is disfavored, In re Allen, 106 F.3d at 600 (internal citation omitted), and courts must narrowly construe the privilege and recognize it "only to the very limited extent that . . . excluding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining the truth." Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50, 100 S.Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980).

In the present case, AVX seeks to protect documents which contain communications among itself, its counsel, counsel's employees, and persons and entities identified as "consultants," the identity of whom AVX argues is protected, as well as others. Bradford Wyche, Robert Witmer, Jr., and Jean Hutchinson McCreary have all worked as counsel for AVX regarding environmental issues related to the issues addressed in the motions before the court. As set forth in more detail below, they opine that the information and documents at issue are subject to protection and, thus, are immune from discovery.

Because AVX does not identify in its privilege log the privileges it argues apply to each document, the court must assume that AVX is asserting that the attorney-client privilege applies to all the documents at issue. Importantly, although the documents at issue involve communications between and among the multiple categories of people set forth above, in its briefs and other evidence presented to the court, AVX addresses only the question of the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to communications involving the environmental consultant(s). Accordingly, the court is unable to engage in anything more than a general discussion of the applicability of the privilege to these other categories of communications because those issues have not been briefed by AVX. Therefore, the court will first address AVX's arguments regarding the communications with third-party consultant(s) and then move on to the other communications that appear in the documents at issue.

AVX cites to In re Bieter Co., 16 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 1994) and its progeny in support of its argument that the communications with the consultant fall within the attorney-client privilege. InBieter, the court found that the consultant was hired by the client and, among other things, worked as a representative of, and advisor to, the client regarding certain business dealings.Id. at 933. Bieter sought protection over materials that contained communications between its attorneys and the business consultant, an individual who had worked closely with Bieter both in its attempt to develop a parcel of land and in subsequent litigation. Id. at 931. The consultant and Bieter entered into a agreement, which provided for the consultant to work out of Bieter's office and to be paid a monthly fee and expenses. Id. The agreement was to run for one year. Id. The consultant worked with architects, consultants, and counsel, and appeared at public hearings on behalf of Bieter and was viewed and dealt with as a representative of Bieter. Id. at 934. The court concluded that "[t]here is no principled basis to distinguish [the consultant's] role from that of an employee, and his involvement in the subject of the litigation makes him precisely the sort of person with whom a lawyer would wish to confer confidentially in order to understand Bieter's reasons for seeking representation. As we understand the record, he was in all relevant respects the functional equivalent of an employee." Id. at 938 (internal citations omitted). The court then addressed the factors to consider when addressing whether the attorney-client privilege is applicable to an employee's communications and concluded that the communications between the consultant and Bieter's counsel were protected. Id. at 940. See also MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines, No. 1:05-cv-1078, 2007 WL 128945 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 2007) (finding the role of the consultant at issue to be akin to the roles of other independent contractors in the In re Bieter line of cases); Neighborhood Development Collaborative v. Murphy, 233 F.R.D. 436, 440 (D.Md. 2005) (finding the consultant's role to be "most analogous to that of the business consultant inIn re Bieter").

AVX presents evidence in the form of Declarations of attorneys Wyche, Witmer, McCreary, and a consultant regarding the nature of the engagement and involvement of the consultant at issue in this case. Wyche declares,

As one of the lawyers for AVX, and in the course of my providing legal advice to AVX, I worked with a environmental consulting firm that assisted me and other counsel in the provision of legal advice to AVX with respect to AVX's Myrtle Beach facility. This environmental consulting firm acted as a consulting expert to the lawyers in our representation of AVX. The consulting firm provided technical assistance to the legal counsel and to AVX.

Wyche Declaration dated July 1, 2010 (Document # 147-1) ¶ 9. Witmer declares,

There appears to be three different Wyche declarations in the record. Accordingly, they will be distinguished by date and document number.

As the principal client relationship lawyer for AVX, and in the course of my providing legal advice to AVX, I engaged and worked with an environmental consulting firm that assisted me and my firm in the provision of legal advice to AVX with respect to AVX's Myrtle Beach facility. This environmental consulting firm acted as a consulting expert to the lawyers in our representation of AVX. The consulting firm provided technical assistance to our Firm in order to enable us to provide legal advice to AVX. . . .

I may not have reviewed or been sent all documents prepared by consultants working at our direction but all of the materials were part of the development and implementation of our legal strategy and were part of the end product of the consultant for the lawyer to be able to develop opinions and provide legal advice to the client.

Witmer Declaration dated July 2, 2010 (Document # 147-2) ¶¶ 6, 8 (emphasis added). McCreary declares,

As one of the lawyers for AVX, and in the course of my providing legal advice to AVX, I regularly work with an environmental consulting firm that assist [sic] me and my firm in the provision of legal advice with respect to AVX's U.S. operating facilities, including its Myrtle Beach facility. We engage environmental consulting firms to act as a consulting expert to the lawyers in our firm's representation of AVX, and do so subject to the explicit understanding that their work is for the purpose of enabling us to provide legal advice to our client with our legal opinions and advice having been informed by technical information developed by the consultant working under the direction of the attorneys. . . .

In the course of engaging a consultant to support our rendering legal advice to AVX, we expressly instruct the consultant in the existence of the attorney-client privilege, the procedures they are required to institute in order to maintain the privilege, and provide cautions against the inadvertent waiver of the privilege.

These practices are established as standing operation procedures within the Environmental Practice Group, and are followed routinely for all engagements of consultants in support of our legal advice to clients.

McCreary Declaration dated July 1, 2010 (Document # 147-3) ¶¶ 6-8. Finally, the project manager for an environmental consulting firm that worked with AVX and its counsel also submitted a declaration:

It is noted that more than one consulting firm is identified in the documents submitted for in camera review.

In the early 1980's, I was employed by an environmental consulting firm. At that time, the environmental consulting firm with which I was employed worked with AVX Corporation's ("AVX") legal counsel and with AVX with respect to AVX's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina facility. I became the project manager for the work my environmental consulting firm conducted at the AVX Myrtle Beach facility.

During the time my environmental consulting firm worked with AVX, AVX had legal counsel in South Carolina and in New York. AVX's legal counsel actively participated with my environmental consulting firm and AVX in evaluating issues with respect to the Myrtle Beach facility.

I understood that my environmental consulting firm was to provide technical assistance to legal counsel and AVX. . . . We provided assistance to enable the law firms to provide legal advice. The assistance we provided and the opinions we rendered were based upon confidential information we received from the client.

Our investigation and addressing of these issues was not for purposes of day-to-day environmental compliance in the ordinary course of business. It was to advise the company in connection with potential litigation and liabilities that were evaluated from the outset.

The record does not support this assertion that the "confidential information" was "received from the client."

Project Manager Declaration dated July 1, 2010 (Document # 147-4) ¶¶ 3-6.

The Declarations and other evidence in the record do not support AVX's position that the consultants were the functional equivalent of employees of AVX. Unlike Bieter, there is no indication here that any consultant was hired by AVX, appeared as a representative of AVX, or otherwise functioned as an employee of AVX. Thus, AVX's reliance on Bieter is misplaced. The attorney-client privilege is not applicable to the communications between the environmental consultant and AVX's legal counsel based upon the environmental consultant's role as the "functional equivalent" of an employee of AVX. Also, as Bieter involves communications between the "functional equivalent" of an employee and the attorney, it is likewise inapplicable to the other communications reflected in the documents presented for in camera review.

However, the privilege has also been applied to outside consultants hired by an attorney to assist in the rendition of legal services. See United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 922 (2d Cir. 1961)). It appears from the declaration of Mr. Witmer that at least one of the consulting firms was hired by counsel for AVX. Witmer declares, "I engaged and worked with an environmental consulting firm," and that the consultants were "working at my direction." Witmer Declaration dated July 2, 2010 (Document # 147-2) ¶¶ 6, 8. Further, McCreary sets forth in her Declaration the standard procedure for engaging environmental consultants for the purpose of enabling the attorneys to provide legal advice. McCreary Declaration dated July 1, 2010 (Document # 147-3) ¶¶ 6-8.

However, retention or employment by the attorney alone is insufficient to bring the consultant within the scope of the attorney-client privilege.See Kovel, 296 F.2d at 921 ("Nothing in the policy of the privilege suggests that attorneys, simply by placing accountants, scientists or investigators on their payrolls and maintaining them in their offices, should be able to invest all communications by clients to such persons with a privilege the law has not seen fit to extend when the latter are operating under their own steam."). Also, "[c]ommunications with the attorney's agent must meet the same confidentiality and legal purpose requirements that are applicable to all other attorney-client communications that are claimed to be privileged." Paul R. Rice, Attorney-Client Privilege in the United States § 3.5 (2d Ed. 2010) (citing Occidental Chemical Corp. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp., 175 F.R.D. 431, 436 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)).

Importantly, "[w]hat is vital to the privilege is that the communication be made in confidence for the purpose of obtaininglegal advice from the lawyer." Kovel, 296 F.2d at 922. In Kovel, the court held that "the attorney client privilege can attach to reports of third parties made at the request of the attorney of the client where the purpose of the report was to put in usable form information obtained from the client." Federal Trade Comm'n v. TRW, Inc., 628 F.2d 207, 212 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The Kovel court "analogized the role of the accountant to that of a translator who puts the client's information into terms that the attorney can use effectively." Id. The court concluded that the attorney-client privilege applied to communications between the client and an accountant retained by the client's attorney where the communication was in furtherance of providing legal advice by the attorney. Kovel, 296 F.2d at 921. The court was careful to note that if the advice given is that of the accountant, rather than the attorney, no privilege exists. Id. at 922. Judge Friendly noted that such a distinction was necessary to prevent the unduly expansion of the privilege. Id. at 923.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recognized this limitation placed by the Kovel court on the protection of communications involving third-parties and noted that "without such limitations, the attorney-client privilege would engulf all manner of services performed for the lawyer that are not now, and should not be, excluded from the adversary process." Federal Trade Commission v. TRW, Inc., 628 F.2d 207, 212 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The TRW court, relying on Kovel, stated, "the foregoing law must be applied to the facts surrounding the preparation of the [documents at issue], as those facts have been made known to us." Id. The research proposal, itself one of the documents at issue, provided,

This proposal has been prepared for the TRW Electronics' Legal Department at the request of Richard W. Pogue, Esq., of Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, and John E. Davis, Counsel for TRW, Inc., to enable them to advise TRW information Services on the status of its procedures under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Id. at 213 (citing Brief of Appellant at 20). The court found this information insufficient to allow for the application of the attorney-client privilege:

Within the broad limits supplied by TRW, we can conceive of circumstances that might warrant application of an attorney-client privilege to the SRI documents. But other circumstances, equally plausible from the record before us, fall outside any reasonable definition of the privilege. This ambiguity is troublesome and, in the end, is the source of our resolution of the question.

The burden is on the proponent of the attorney-client privilege to demonstrate its applicability. See, e. g., United States v. Stern, 511 F.2d 1364 (2d Cir. 1975). Where, as here, we have not been provided with sufficient facts to state with reasonable certainty that the privilege applies, this burden is not met. As noted earlier TRW's claim lies at an outer and indistinct boundary of the law of attorney-client privilege. Particularly where this is so, it is our responsibility to tread carefully, with as much precision as the facts before us permit.

Id. The court concluded that the proponent of the privilege failed to meet its burden of establishing that the documents were protected.

The declarations submitted by AVX state generally that the environmental consultants provided technical assistance to counsel for AVX to enable counsel to provide legal advice to AVX with respect to AVX's Myrtle Beach facility. However, a review of the documents withheld by AVX makes these assertions unclear at best and reveals at least a much more expansive role than that described in the declarations.

A review of the documents submitted by AVX for in camera review reveals several troublesome issues. First, the environmental consultants were not simply putting into usable form information obtained from the client; rather, they were independently gathering their own data, conducting testing, engaging in remedial measures and rendering opinions. Such factual data and the resulting opinions fall outside the attorney-client privilege. See United States Postal Serv. v. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F.Supp. 156, 161-62 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) ("[T]hese consultants based their opinions on factual and scientific evidence they generated through studies and collected through observation of the physical condition of the Property, information that did not come through client confidences. Such underlying factual data can never be protected by the attorney-client privilege and neither can the resulting opinions and recommendations."); Occidental Chemical Corp., 175 F.R.D. at 437 (relying on Phelps Dodge).

AVX argues that Phelps Dodge is distinguishable because, unlike the consultant in the present case, the consultants in Phelps Dodge were retained by the client to formulate an acceptable remediation plan and oversee remedial work at the property. However, even though AVX has submitted declarations that a consultant was hired in the present case to assist in the provision of legal advice, as stated above, the general statements contained in the declarations fail to support AVX's burden of proof when considered with the documents themselves.

Second, the environmental consultants were not simply providing technical assistance to the attorneys for the purpose of rendering legal advice, rather they were providing environmental services directly to AVX. Like the court in TRW, the undersigned can conceive of circumstances where portions of some of the communications withheld by AVX could have been given for the purpose of assisting in the provision of legal advice; however, equally as plausible are circumstances where the same information is provided as environmental consulting advice and/or services. Such advice, as noted in Kovel and TRW, falls outside the attorney-client privilege.

Finally, a specific review of the documents submitted for incamera review reveals that these documents, whether they include communications with an outside consultant or other communications, fall outside the attorney-client privilege. The court has reviewed the documents submitted by AVX for in camera review. However, discussing the asserted privileges as they apply to each individual document would be burdensome. Generally speaking, as for the documents involving communications to or from an environmental consultant, as discussed above, AVX has failed to show that the communication involved gathering information from client confidences or providing information from the client through the consultant to the attorney for the purpose of assisting the attorney in giving legal advice.

For the many communications between a non-attorney employee of the law firm and an employee of AVX, AVX has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the communication was between an attorney and client, that it involved legal advice or that involved information from the client for the purpose of seeking legal advice. Other documents contain communications solely between employees of AVX while others involve communications solely between employees of the law firm. AVX fails to show how these communications fall within the attorney-client privilege. A good number of the documents at issue are described on the privilege log as handwritten notes concerning impressions of counsel. Several of these documents are specifically addressed below. To qualify for the attorney-client privilege, an attorney's notes must incorporate and reveal a client's communications. Cencast Services, LP v. United States, 91 Fed.Cl. 496, 507 (Fed.Cl. 2010) (citing Cities Serv. Helex v. United States, 216 Ct.Cl. 470, 475 (1978). InCencast, the court found that the attorney's notes did not reveal client communications, but rather simply recounted her or other attorney's views of the significance of certain issues they encountered. Id. (citing Am. Nat'l Bank Trust Co. of Chicago v. AXA Client Solutions, No. 00 C 6786, 2002 WL 1058776, at *2 (N.D.Ill. March 22, 2002) ("The handwritten notes merely reflect in-house counsel's own uncommunicated thoughts, and such recorded and uncommunicated thoughts fall outside the province of the attorney-client privilege."); Sneider v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 91 F.R.D. 1, 6 (N.D.Ill. 1980)). Here, AVX has failed to show that the handwritten notes incorporate or reveal client confidences or how they are otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege.

For instance, Libby Ford is identified on the privilege log as a Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Employee and is included in many of the communications at issue. Her position within the firm, as indicated in some of the documents at issue, is Senior Environmental Health Engineer. AVX has failed to address how her role as an engineer employed by a law firm entitles her communications to protection under the attorney-client privilege.See Kovel, 296 F.2d at 921 ("Nothing in the policy of the privilege suggests that attorneys, simply by placing accountants, scientists or investigators on their payrolls and maintaining them in their offices, should be able to invest all communications by clients to such persons with a privilege the law has not seen fit to extend when the latter are operating under their own steam.").

The court has identified forty-seven documents described in the privilege log as containing "impressions," "mental impressions," or "opinions" of counsel. Most of the documents contain notes of Libby Ford. Even if Ms. Ford's notes could be "impressions of counsel," while the court appreciates the protection of mental impressions of counsel where work product protection is applicable, as discussed in detail below, AVX has failed to show work product protection is applicable to the documents at issue.

The undersigned has selected every tenth document to specifically address in this Order:

The AVXRED and AVXPRIV documents, although listed together on the privilege log, were produced separately in separate boxes. Thus, they will be addressed separately here.

• AVXPRIV00026 This document is a one-page fax cover sheet from Libby Ford, an employee at Nixon Hargrave Law Firm, to Joan Prager, an employee of AVX. The information on the cover sheet is not a communication between an attorney and client, it is not legal advice, and it is not information obtained from the client for the purpose of giving legal advice. At best, the court would have to speculate to conclude that the information contained within this document was given for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXPRIV00041 This document is a one-page fax cover sheet from Libby Ford to Joan Prager. There is no information communicated on this document. Clearly, it does not include legal advice or otherwise qualify for the privilege. • AVXPRIV00092- AVXPRIV00097 This document is from Libby Ford to Dennis Oldland, an employee of AVX. It is not a communication between an attorney and client, it is not legal advice, nor is it information obtained from the client for the purpose of giving legal advice. At best, the court would have to speculate to conclude that the information contained within this document was given for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXPRIV00178- AVXPRIV00179 This document is from an environmental consultant to Joan Prager. It is carbon-copied to Libby Ford. It is clear from the last sentence in the document that the information contained therein is not for the purpose of giving legal advice. Furthermore, it is not a communication between an attorney and client nor is it information gathered from the client for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXPRIV00235 On the privilege log, this document is identified as "handwritten notes concerning impressions of counsel" from Libby Ford to AVX. However, the document itself provides no indication that it was directed to or provided to anyone at AVX. The court is unable to conclude after reviewing the document that it involves a communication between an attorney and client or is a memorialization of a communication between an attorney and client, that it is legal advice or that it is information obtained from the client for the purpose of giving legal advice. At best, the court would have to speculate to conclude that the information contained within this document was given for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXPRIV00343- AVXPRIV00345 This document is from an environmental consultant to Gary Den Braven, an employee of AVX. Bradford Wyche, an attorney for AVX is copied on the document. The opening sentence of the communication reveals that it involves environmental, rather than legal, advice. Moreover, the document is not a communication from an attorney to client nor does it include information obtained from the client for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXPRIV00366 This document is identified on the privilege log as "handwritten notes concerning impressions of counsel" from Robert Witmer, an attorney for AVX, to AVX Corporation. However, nothing on the document itself indicates that is was provided to anyone at AVX. The court is unable to conclude after reviewing the document that it involves a communication between an attorney and client or is a memorialization of a communication between an attorney and client, that it is legal advice or that it is information obtained from the client for the purpose of giving legal advice. At best, the court would have to speculate to conclude that the information contained within this document was given for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXPRIV00588 This document is a letter from a consultant to Joan Prager and is copied to Libby Ford. Although identified as a report on the privilege log, it is actually a letter referencing a report. It is not a communication between an attorney and client, nor does it involve legal advice. Further, it does not include information obtained from the client for the purpose of giving legal advice. • AVXPRIV00638- AVXPRIV00641 This document is from Libby Ford to Joan Prager. It is not a communication between an attorney and client, it does not involve legal advice, nor does it include information from the client given for the purpose of rendering legal advice. At best, the court would have to speculate to conclude that the information contained within this document was given for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXPRIV00680 This document is nothing more than a fax cover sheet from Libby Ford to Joan Prager. There is no information communicated on this document, and, clearly, it does not involve legal advice or otherwise qualify for the privilege. • AVXPRIV00754- AVXPRIV00757 On the privilege log, this document is identified as "handwritten notes concerning impressions of counsel" from Libby Ford to AVX. However, the document itself provides no indication that it was directed to or provided to anyone at AVX. The court is unable to conclude after reviewing the document that it involves a communication between an attorney and client or is a memorialization of a communication between an attorney and client, that it is legal advice or that it is information obtained from the client for the purpose of giving legal advice. At best, the court would have to speculate to conclude that the information contained within this document was given for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXPRIV00998 This document is a letter from a consultant to Gary Den Braven and copied to Bradford Wyche. This letter is not a communication between an attorney and client, does not contain legal advice and does not contain information obtained from the client for the purpose of providing legal advice. • AVXPRIV01024- AVXPRIV01025 This is a letter from Libby Ford to a consultant regarding an invoice for the consultant's work. It is not a communication between an attorney and client nor does it contain legal advice. Furthermore, it does not include information obtained from the client for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXRED00098- AVXRED00109 This is a well sampling report from a consultant to Terry Wearstler, an employee of AVX. This document is not a communication between an attorney and client. In addition, the redacted portions of this document include environmental, not legal, advice. It does not include information obtained from the client for the purposes of rendering legal advice. • AVXRED00264- AVXRED00270 This document is a report from a consultant to AVX. It is not between an attorney and client, the redacted portions of the report do not include information obtained from the client for the purposes of providing legal advice, nor do the redacted portions of the report contain legal advice. • AVXRED00427- AVXRED00428 This document is described on the privilege log as a water analysis report from a consultant to Libby Ford and Joan Prager. However, it is actually a report from a laboratory to a consultant. It is not between an attorney and client, the redacted portions of the report do not include information collected from the client, nor do the redacted portions of the report involve legal advice. • AVXRED00470- AVXRED00478 This document is a report from a consultant to Gary Den Braven. It is not between an attorney and client, the redacted portions of the report do not include information collected from the client, nor do the redacted portions of the report involve legal advice. • AVXRED00554- AVXRED00557 This document is not between an attorney and client, the redacted portions of the report do not include information collected from the client, nor do the redacted portions of the report involve legal advice. At best, the court would have to speculate to conclude that the information contained within this document was given for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXRED00609- AVDRED00622 This document is not between an attorney and client, the redacted portions of the report do not include information collected from the client, nor do the redacted portions of the report involve legal advice. At best, the court would have to speculate to conclude that the information contained within this document was given for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXRED00699- AVXRED00707 This document is not between an attorney and client, the redacted portions of the report do not include information collected from the client, nor do the redacted portions of the report involve legal advice. At best, the court would have to speculate to conclude that the information contained within this document was given for the purpose of rendering legal advice. • AVXRED00958- AVXRED00974 This document is described on the privilege log as an environmental audit report. It is drafted by John Walker and others at AVX for the file. It is not between an attorney and client, the redacted portions of the report do not include information collected from the client, nor do the redacted portions of the report involve legal advice. • AVXRED01199- AVXRED01202 This document is from a consultant to Gary Den Braven. It is not between an attorney and client, the redacted portions of the report do not include information collected from the client, nor do the redacted portions of the report involve legal advice. • AVXRED01371- AVXRED01374 This document is between two employees of AVX, Joan Prager and Jim Dixon. It is not between an attorney and client, the redacted portions of the report do not include information collected from the client, nor do the redacted portions of the report involve legal advice. • AVXRED01510- AVXRED01511 This document is described on the privilege log as an environmental audit report. It is from John Walker to Gary Den Braven, both employees of AVX. It is not between an attorney and client, the redacted portions of the report do not include information collected from the client, nor do the redacted portions of the report involve legal advice. AVX presents broad, general, conclusory evidence to support its assertion privilege. As set forth above, AVX has waived any privilege to these documents initially based upon its failure to provide a privilege log and its subsequently provided insufficient privilege log. Nonetheless, as shown in the above discussion of a sampling of the documents at issue, the attorney-client privilege is inapplicable to the communications between counsel and outside consultants, as well as the other documents submitted for in camera review. Even if the court could construe some of the attorney-authored documents, of which there are few, as falling within the privilege, such a finding would require the court to engage in speculation based upon the record presented, and would be inconsistent with the requirement that the privilege be narrowly construed. Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50. For these reasons, the undersigned finds AVX's arguments regarding the attorney-client privilege to be without merit.

D. Work-Product Doctrine

Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure incorporates the common law articulated in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). Rule 26(b)(3) protects "things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation," whether they are prepared by a parties' attorney, consultant, or other agent. This doctrine is premised on the idea that "[n]ot even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquires into the files and the mental impressions of an attorney." Hickman, 329 U.S. at 510.

The Fourth Circuit has recognized that a party often may prepare documents for multiple purposes, "not only out of a concern for future litigation, but also to prevent reoccurrences, to improve safety and efficiency . . . and to respond to regulatory agencies. Determining the driving force behind the preparation of each requested document is therefore required in resolving a work product immunity question." National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Murray Sheet Metal Co., Inc., 967 F.2d 980, 984 (4th Cir. 1992). "The mere fact that litigation does eventually ensue does not, by itself, cloak materials with work product immunity. The document must be prepared because of the prospect of litigation when the preparer faces an actual claim or a potential claim following an actual event or series of events that reasonably could result in litigation" Id. (internal citations omitted).

The privilege encompasses both "fact" work product and "opinion" work product. Fact work product, which consists of documents prepared by an attorney that do not contain the attorney's mental impressions, "can be discovered upon a showing of both a substantial need and an inability to secure the substantial equivalent of the materials by alternate means without undue hardship." In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d at 348; see also In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir. 1981) (defining fact work product). Opinion work product, which does contain the fruit of an attorney's mental processes, is absolutely protected. National Union, 967 F.2d at 984.

As with the attorney-client privilege, the party seeking work-product protection has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to it. Sandberg v. Virginia Bankshares, Inc., 979 F.2d 332, 355 (4^th Cir. 1992).

AVX asserts that the documents at issue are also privileged under the work-product doctrine. The issues here are whether the documents AVX seeks to protect were created in anticipation of litigation and whether Horry Land Company has a substantial need for the documents.

Again, AVX does not set forth in its privilege log which asserted privilege or protection applies to which document. Thus, the court must assume AVX is arguing that the work product doctrine applies to all of the documents at issue.

The documents at issue here were created during the 1980s and 1990s. Former counsel for AVX, Bradford Wyche, declares in a supplemental declaration that,

In environmental situations, there is the potential for claims when on-site environmental contamination is discovered as that is an event that reasonably could result in litigation.

Documents were prepared because of the potential for claims (among other reasons) and part of my engagement involved those issues. The potential for litigation was considered and evaluated.

Wyche Supp. Decl. dated April 17, 2009 (Document # 74-6), at ¶¶ 3-4.

Because litigation is an ever present facet of American life, the test set forth in National Union above is not always an easy one to apply. "Nevertheless, a court must be satisfied that the document or tangible thing was not created during the ordinary course of business, pursuant to laws, regulations or other obligations, or for any non-litigation reason." Suggs v. Whitiker, 152 F.R.D. 501, 505-06 (M.D.N.C. 1993) (citing National Union, 967 F.2d at 984). The district court for the Eastern District of Virginia provides a thorough analysis of National Union's anticipation of litigation test:

National Union's "because of" standard operates on two related principles. First, it protects "work product" that is created because of litigation when that litigation is a real likelihood, but not "work product" that is created "because of" litigation when that litigation is merely a possibility. National Union explained that, "because litigation is an ever-present possibility in American life, it is more often the case than not that events are documented with the general possibility of litigation in mind. Yet the mere fact that litigation does eventually ensue does not, by itself, cloak materials with work product immunity." National Union, 967 F.2d at 984. Therefore, to receive protection, the "work product" must be prepared "because of the prospect of litigation when the preparer faces an actual claim or a potential claim following an actual event or series of events that reasonably could result in litigation." Id. The preparation of work merely because an attorney "anticipates the contingency" of litigation is not sufficient to qualify the work for the protection afforded by the work-product doctrine. Id.

Second, the "because of" standard is designed to protect only work that was conducted because of for [sic] litigation, not work that would have been done in any event. National Union noted that "materials prepared . . . pursuant to regulatory requirements or for other non-litigation purposes are not documents prepared in anticipation of litigation. . . ." 967 F.2d at 984. National Union drew this rule from Goosman v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc., 320 F.2d 45 (4th Cir. 1963). In Goosman, the plaintiff sustained injuries when he collided with the defendant's tractor-trailer. Federal regulations required the defendant's agent to make a written statement of the incident. Though litigation was evidently imminent, the Goosman court ruled that the report was not "work product." Id. at 52. National Union construed Goosman to mean that where regulations or other "non-litigation" responsibilities compel a party to produce "work product," that product is made "in the ordinary course of business, and does not receive work product immunity." National Union, 967 F.2d at 984.

RLI Ins. Co. v. Conseco, Inc., 477 F.Supp.2d 741, 747 (E.D.Va. 2007).

The evidence in the record offered by AVX to support its claim of work product protection over the documents at issue is insufficient to show that litigation was a real likelihood rather than a mere possibility. Also, the record fails to reveal the driving force behind the preparation of the documents at issue.See National Union, 967 F.2d at 984 ("Determining the driving force behind the preparation of each requested document is . . . required in resolving a work product immunity question.").

In Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Tonka Corp., 140 F.R.D. 381, 390 (D.Minn. 1992), the court held that documents created after the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued a Request for Initial Investigation were generated in anticipation of litigation and therefore protected pursuant to the work product doctrine. In 1981, as required by CERCLA, Tonka, the party requesting work product protection of documents, notified the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that its facility might be a possible hazardous waste site. Id. at 384. Thereafter, between 1982 and 1984, both Tonka and the MPCA conducted "extensive investigations" at the site and elevated levels of hazardous substances were discovered in June of 1984. Id. On February 5, 1985, the MPCA issued a Request for Initial Investigation by way of a letter to Tonka's lawyer, asking Tonka to take certain specified steps to assess the extent and the magnitude of the groundwater and soil contamination at the Tonka site. Id. The court found that documents created after February 5, 1985, were generated in anticipation of litigation. Id. at 390. The court further stated,

Although litigation was always a prospect from the moment Tonka notified the EPA of the existence of the Tonka Main Site pursuant to CERCLA, before the MPCA issued its Request for Initial Investigation the prospect of litigation was too remote to enable the court to conclude that the documents at issue here were prepared or obtained because of the prospect for litigation.

Id.

In the instant case, AVX fails to present sufficient evidence to establish why it anticipated litigation. The declaration of Wyche states generally that "in environmental situations, there is the potential for claims when on-site environmental contamination is discovered as that is an event that reasonably could result in litigation." Wyche Supp. Decl. dated April 17, 2009 (Document # 74-6), at ¶ 3. The prospect of litigation arising out of the discovery of environmental contamination is, on its own, too remote to allow this court to conclude that the preparation of documents after the discovery of contamination was done in anticipation of litigation.

Further, the evidence in the record fails to show that the documents at issue would not have been prepared for any reason other than litigation. Wyche's declaration states that the documents at issue were created "because of the potential for claims (among other reasons)." Wyche Supp. Decl. dated April 17, 2009 (Document # 74-6), at ¶ 4. It is clear from his declaration as well as a review of the documents themselves that the documents at issue were created for reasons other than just the potential for litigation. Also, the record indicates that the existence of contamination was not made known to others for an extended period. Under the facts presented in this case, AVX fails to meet its burden of showing that the work product protection applies to the documents at issue.

Again, the court can conceive of circumstances where a limited number of the documents created in the later years could be work product material. However, such a finding would require the court to speculate as to the circumstances, an endeavor in which the court is not to engage.

Although waiver applies in the context of the work production doctrine as well, In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1079 (4th Cir. 1981), the court need not address this issue in light of its finding that AVX has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the doctrine applies. See footnote 11.

E. Statutory Self-Evaluation Privilege

AVX also summarily claims that the documents at issue are protected by the statutory self-evaluation privilege. AVX asserts that "the South Carolina Environmental Audit Privilege and Voluntary Disclosure Act [the Act], S.C. Code Ann. § 48-57-30(A), provides that internal environmental evaluations voluntarily undertaken by a facility" are privileged and immune from discovery. Motion for Protective Order (Document # 41) p. 7. However, the Act is not so broad in its protections. Specifically, it provides,

(A) An environmental audit report or any part of an environmental audit report is privileged and, therefore, immune from discovery and is not admissible as evidence in a civil or administrative penalty action, except as provided in Sections 48-57-40 and 48-57-50. These documents are not entitled to the privilege:

(1) information obtained by observation by a regulatory agency;

(2) information obtained from a source independent of the environmental audit;

(3) documents, communication, data, reports, or other information required to be collected, maintained, otherwise made available, or reported to a regulatory agency or any other persons by statute, regulation, ordinance, permit, order, consent agreement, or as otherwise provided by law;

(4) documents prepared either prior to the beginning of the environmental audit or subsequent to the completion date of the audit report, and in all cases, any documents prepared independent of the audit or audit report;

(5) documents prepared as a result of multiple or continuous self-auditing conducted in an effort to intentionally avoid liability for violations;

(6) information which is knowingly misrepresented or misstated or which is knowingly deleted or withheld from an environmental audit report, whether or not included in a subsequent environmental audit report;

(7) information in instances where the material shows evidence of noncompliance with state, federal, regional, or local environmental laws, permits, consent agreements, regulations, ordinances, or orders and the owner or operator failed to either promptly take corrective action or eliminate any violation of law identified during the environmental audit within a reasonable period of time, but not exceeding three years after discovery of the noncompliance or violation unless a longer period of time is set forth in a schedule of compliance in an order issued by the department, after notice in the State Register and following the department's determination that acceptable progress is being made.

S.C. Code Ann. § 48-57-30(A) (emphasis added). Both "environmental audit" and "environmental audit report" are defined by the Act. Importantly, "[a]n environmental audit must be a discrete activity with a specified beginning date and scheduled ending date reflecting the auditor's bona fide intended completion schedule." S.C. Code Ann. § 48-57-20(2). Furthermore, "`environmental audit report' means a document marked or identified as such with a completion date existing either individually or as a compilation prepared in connection with an environmental audit." S.C. Code Ann. § 48-57-20(3). As stated above, AVX argues generally that the documents at issue are all protected by all of the claimed privileges. AVX has not identified on its privilege log which privilege applies to each document. AVX has presented for incamera review approximately 2,500 pages of documents created over the course of approximately fifteen years. AVX has failed to meet its burden of showing the existence an of an environmental audit or audits or that the documents at issue fall within the definition of environmental audit report. Accordingly, the court finds that the privilege provided in the Act does not apply to the documents at issue in this case.

The court notes that, in its privilege log, AVX labels several of the documents at issue as environmental audit reports. Nevertheless, even if AVX argues that the privilege set forth in the act applies only to these specific documents, it has failed to show that these documents fall within the definition of "environmental audit report" as set forth in the Act, whether they were prepared in connection with an "environmental audit" as defined in the Act, or to address whether these documents fall outside the exceptions to the privilege set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 48-57-30(A)(1) — (7).

F. Insurance Documents

Three of the documents at issue are identified on the privilege log as being either to or from an "insurance company" (AVXRED000247-63; AVXRED01479-81; AVXRED01482-01507). For the same reasons discussed above, these three documents are not protected under either the attorney-client client privilege, the work product doctrine, or the statutory self-evaluation privilege. AVX also argues that these documents are protected from discovery based upon the existence of a fiduciary relationship between insurance carriers and an applicant. However, the cases cited by AVX do not support such a finding. The cases cited by AVX recognize a duty on the part of an insurer to protect the personal information of an applicant based upon contractual obligations or a fiduciary relationship.See Daly v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 782 N.Y.S.2d 530 (N.Y.Sup. 2004); Robley v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Miss., 935 So.2d 1021, 1025 (Miss. App. 2005); Roberge v. Physicians Health Serv., 2002 WL 449528, at *2 (Conn. Super. Feb. 26, 2002). However, they do not address an insured disclosing the information through discovery in unrelated litigation. AVX fails to show that these cases are relevant to the issues before this court.

AVX also asserts "the common interest doctrine" as a separate protection afforded communications with an insurance company. However, the common interest doctrine is merely an exception to the general rule under both the attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine that disclosure of otherwise-protected information to third-parties waives the protection. See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 902 F.2d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 1990). It is not a separate protection.

Also, AVX's reliance on Jason's Enterprises, Inc. v. General Acc. Ins. Co. of America, Nos. 95-2553, 95-2554, 1996 WL 346515 (4th Cir. June 25, 1996) is unpersuasive. As discussed in more detail above, AVX has fails to meet its burden of showing the documents at issue were created in anticipation of litigation. Thus, work product protection is not applicable.

AVX also cites to the Advisory Committee Notes accompanying the 1970 amendments to Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., which state,

For some purposes other than discovery, an application for insurance is treated as a part of the insurance agreement. The provision makes clear that, for discovery purposes, the application is not to be so treated. The insurance application may contain personal and financial information concerning the insured, discovery of which is beyond the purpose of this provision.

These Advisory Committee Notes refer to and limit the required disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) relating to potential insurance coverage. This note does not address documents or information sought in discovery outside of the required disclosures under Rule 26. Accordingly, AVX's reliance on this provision is misplaced and its claim of protection for the insurance documents is without merit.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, AVX has failed to establish that the documents at issue should be protected from discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (Document # 109) is DENIED and Defendant Horry Land Company's Motion to Compel (Document # 137) is GRANTED. AVX is ordered to produce to Horry Land Company in full, that is, in unredacted format, the documents it submitted for in camera review, as well as all the documents listed in category four on its privilege log-communications regarding law firm consultant invoices-within ten (10) days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the privilege log submitted by AVX along with the documents for in camera review as an exhibit to this order.

The court's ruling that the documents at issue are not protected renders moot the issues originally raised by AVX regarding the deposition questions to the AVX employees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 24, 2010 Florence, South Carolina

AVX CORPORATION'S LOG OF PROTECTED DOCUMENTS WITH BATES NUMBERS

The plaintiff AVX Corporation ("AVX") identifies the following documents that have not been produced as to which attorney-client, work product, anticipation of litigation, audit and business proprietary privileges are claimed as described in AVX's briefs filed with the Court. As previously indicated, environmental sampling data has been produced to the defendant, Horry Land Company, Inc. ("Horry Land").

As previously indicated, AVX contends that all documents on its privilege log are protected from discovery. In an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute, however, AVX provided certain of the documents listed in its privilege log to Horry Land's counsel in redacted form pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement. AVX did not provide the other documents on AVX's privilege log to Horry Land's counsel because AVX contends that those documents are entirely protected and there should be no access to those documents by Horry Land, in redacted form or otherwise. Again, AVX believes the redacted documents are also completely protected and requests that the Court so find as AVX only provided the redacted documents to Horry Land in redacted form in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute. Environmental sampling data from 1981 to 1995 (and thereafter) has separately been provided to Horry Land.

The redacted documents that AVX previously provided to Horry Land's counsel are labeled with bates numbers AVXRED00001 — AVXREDO1524. They are labeled "AVXRED" because they have been redacted and provided to Horry Land's counsel in redacted form. These documents are provided to the Court in the box with this log that is labeled "AVX Redacted Documents AVXRED00001 — 01524 — for the Court's In Camera Review Only". The highlighted text on these documents constitutes the redactions made to the documents provided to Horry Land. The last column on this privilege log provides the AVXRED bates numbers. Please note that the AVXRED bates numbers appear on some but not all of the documents on the privilege log (the AVXRED bates numbers are highlighted on this privilege log). Again, this is because AVX provided those documents with the opinions redacted.

The remainder of the documents (without AVXRED bates numbers) on AVX's privilege log are those that were not redacted because AVX contends that those documents are also entirely protected and no redactions would be appropriate as Horry Land is not entitled to any access of those materials. These documents are labeled AVXPRIV00001-AVXPRIV01025 and listed by the bates number on the attached privileged log. These "AVXPRIV" documents are included with this letter in this box with a separate label "AVX Privileged Documents `AVXPRIV00001-AVXPRIV01025 — For the Court's In Camera Review Only." These two boxes comprise the documents specifically identified on AVX's privilege log.

AVX Corporation's Log of Protected Documents with Bates Numbers

Document To From Document Description Bates date Number 04/19/1989 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Soil sampling report AVXRED00001- and others at AVX AVXRED00009 06/08/1989 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Soil sampling report AVXRED00010- and others at AVX AVXRED00029 03/27/1989 File Law Firm Consultant Soil sampling memorandum AVXRED00030- AVXRED0031 03/03/1989 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Soil sampling report AVXRED00032- and others at AVX AVXRED00047 10/21/1988 Prager, Joan (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater analysis report AVXRED00048- AVXRED00063 12/01/1989 Prager, Joan (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling AVXRED00064 correspondence 09/16/1985 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Soil and groundwater report AVXRED00065- and others at AVX AVXRED00068 04/03/1990 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Summary report on groundwater AVXRED00069- and others at AVX studies AVXRED00091 09/04/1985 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Summary report on groundwater AVXRED00092- Burgess Lawyer); Den studies AVXRED00097 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 05/07/1984 Wearstler, Terry (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling report AVXRED00098- AVXRED00109 11/19/1991 Prager, Joan (AVX); Ford, Libby (Nixon Well form correspondence AVXRED00110 Law Firm Consultant Hargrave Law Firm Employee) State of South Carolina Produced to Horry Land with no AVXRED00111- Water Resource redactions AVXRED00158 Commission 11/14/1991 Witmer, G. Robert Prager, Joan (AVX) Groundwater report correspondence AVXPR1V00001- (Nixon Hargrave AVXPRIV00002 Lawyer); Ford, Libby (Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Employee) 07/31/1991 Ford, Libby (Nixon Prager, Joan (AVX) Well drilling correspondence AVXPRIV00003 Hargrave Law Firm Employee) 07/03/1991 Law Firm Consultant; Ford, Libby (Nixon Sampling memorandum AVXPRIV00004- Witmer, Robert G. Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00006 (Nixon Hargrave Employee) Lawyer); Prager, Joan (AVX) 05/13/1991 Ford, Libby (Nixon Witmer, G. Robert Well installation correspondence and AVXPRIV00007- Hargrave Law Firm (Nixon Hargrave memorandum AVXPRIV00011 Employee); Nozik, Lawyer) Michael E. (Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Employee); Prager, Joan (AVX) 07/01/1991 Witmer, G. Robert Ford, Libby (Nixon Production well memorandum AVXPRIV00012- (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00013 Lawyer); Prager, Joan Employee) (AVX); Law Firm Consultant 07/02/1991 Witmer, G. Robert Ford, Libby (Nixon Production well memorandum AVXPRIV00014- (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00017 Lawyer); Prager, Joan Employee) (AVX) 07/15/1991 AVX Corporation Ford, Libby (Nixon Project status memorandum AVXPRIV00018- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00020 Employee) 05/29/1991 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00021- Hargrave Law Firm impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00023 Employee) 02/28/1994 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Monitoring well memorandum AVXPRIV00024- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00025 Employee) 08/24/1992 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Environmental analysis report AVXPR1V00026 Hargrave Law Firm Employee) AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Well analysis outline AVXPRIV00027 07/25/1990 Witmer, G. Robert Prager, Joan (AVX) Well data correspondence AVXPRIV00028 (Nixon Hargrave (AVXRED00159) Lawyer); Law Firm Consultant 02/11/1993 Prager, Joan (AVX) and DeRosa, Jerry (Nixon Soil disposal correspondence AVXPR1V00029- Nixon Hargrave Lawyers Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00030 and Employees Employee) 12/23/1992 Prager, Joan (AVX); DeRosa, Jerry (Nixon Soil analysis correspondence AVXPRIV00031- Witmer, Robert G. Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00032 (Nixon Hargrave Employee) Lawyer) and Ford, Libby (Nixon Hargrave Employee) 01/08/1993 Witmer, G. Robert DeRosa, Jerry (Nixon Soil sample analysis AVXPRIV00033 (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm Lawyer); Ford, Libby Employee) (Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Employe); Prager, Joan (AVX) 02/19/1993 Floro, Allan (Nixon DeRosa, Jerry (Nixon Correspondence re: soil treatment AVXPRIV00034- Hargrave Lawyer); Ford, Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00036 Libby (Nixon Hargrave Employee) (AVXRED00160- Law Firm Employee); AVXRED00163) Prager, Joan (AVX) 12/07/1992 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Sampling data correspondence AVXPRIV00037 Hargrave Law Firm Employee) 02/08/1993 DeRosa, Jerry (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Waste disposal correspondence AVXPRIV00038- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00039 Employee) 02/09/1993 DeRosa, Jerry (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Proposal correspondence AVXPRIV00040 Hargrave Law Firm Employee) 08/00/1984 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Preliminary engineering report AVXRED00164- AVXRED00196 10/26/1992 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Sampling data analysis AVXPRIV00041 Hargrave Law Firm Employee) 04/30/1992 Witmer, G. Robert DeRosa, Jerry (Nixon Soil sampling report AVXPRIV00042 (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm Lawyer); Ford, Libby Employee) (Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Employee); Prager, Joan (AVX) 04/30/1992 Witmer, G. Robert DeRosa, Jerry (Nixon Soil sampling report AVXPRIV00043- (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00044 Lawyer); Prager, Joan Employee) (AVX) 08/27/1990 Law Firm Consultant Prager, Joan (AVX) Groundwater evaluation plan AVXPRIV00045 correspondence 06/00/1981 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Preliminary groundwater evaluation AVXRED00197- report AVXRED00229 10/00/1981 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Preliminary groundwater evaluation AVXRED00230- report AVXRED00241 03/05/1982 Wearstler, Terry (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling report AVXRED00242- AVXRED00246 04/24/1981 AVX Corporation Insurance Company Report on AVX Corporation AVXRED00247- AVXRED00263 00/00/1982 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Addendum to groundwater AVXRED00264- evaluation AVXREDO0270 07/27/1995 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten note concerning AVXPRIV00046 Hargrave Law Firm impressions of counsel Employee) 07/12/1995 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Preliminary risk assessment report AVXPRIV00047- with notes conveying impressions of AVXPRIV0078 counsel (Draft) 04/15/1992 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater analysis report AVXPRIV00079- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00081 Employee); Prager, Joan (AVXRED00271- (AVX) AVXRED00272) 11/30/1992; AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant; Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00082- 12/10/1992; Ford, Libby (Nixon impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00085 12/14/1992 Hargrave Law Firm Employee); DeRosa, Jerry (Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Employee) 01/04/1993 Witmer, G. Robert DeRosa, Jerry (Nixon Soil sample analysis report AVXPRIV00086- (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00087 Lawyer); Ford, Libby Employee) (Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Employee); Prager, Joan (AVX) 02/26/1996 Ford, Libby (Nixon Prager, Joan (AVX) Monitoring well report AVXPRIV00088 Hargrave Law Firm (AVXRED00273- Employee) AVXRED00277) 01/18/1996 Witmer, G. Robert Ford, Libby (Nixon Background document report AVXPRIV00089- (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00091 Lawyer); Prager, Joan Employee) (AVXRED00278- (AVX) AVXRED00341) 08/28/1989 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater investigation report AVXRED00342- AVXRED00368 08/00/1984 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Preliminary engineering soil and AVXRED00369- groundwater report AVXRED00408 04/12/1996 Oldland, Dennis (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Soil screen procedure AVXPRIV00092- and others at AVX Hargrave Law Firm correspondence AVXPRIV00097 Employee) (AVXRED00409- AVXRED00417) 05/21/1996 Ford, Libby (Nixon Oldland, Dennis (AVX) Status report memorandum and AVXPRIV00098- Hargrave Law Firm correspondence AVXPRIV00101 Employee); Witmer, G. Robert (Nixon Hargrave Lawyer); AVX Employees 06/20/1996 Ford, Libby (Nixon Oldland, Dennis (AVX) Telephone conversation AVXPRIV00102 Hargrave Law Firm memorandum Employee); Blue, Larry (AVX) and others at AVX 07/25/1990 Witmer, G. Robert Prager, Joan (AVX) Well correspondence AVXPRIV00103- (Nixon Hargrave AVXPRIV00104 Lawyer); Law Firm Consultant 04/07/1988 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Water sampling data result report AVXRED00418- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED00422 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 04/16/1985 Walker, John (AVX) and Law Firm Consultant Wastewater sampling report AVXRED00423- others at AVX AVXRED00424 12/19/1984 Walker, John (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Wastewater sampling report AVXRED00425- AVXRED00426 01/14/1997 Law Firm Consultant; Ford, Libby (Nixon Groundwater sampling report (Draft AVXPRIV00105- Blue, Larry (AVX) Hargrave Law Firm with impressions of counsel) AVXPRIV00108 Employee) 02/24/1995 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling report AVXPRIV00109- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00110 Employee) 04/27/1993 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling report AVXPRIV00111- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00171 Employee) 08/06/1993; Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant; Monitoring well memorandum AVXPRIV00172- 06/25/1993 Hargrave Law Firm Law Firm Memo to File AVXPRIV00174 Employee) with Mental Impressions 06/24/1993 AVX Corporation Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00175 Hargrave Employee) impressions of counsel 06/02/1993 AVX Corporation Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00176- Hargrave Employee) impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00177 04/15/1992 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Water analysis report AVXPRIV00178- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00179 Employee); Prager, Joan (AVXRED00427- (AVX) AVXRED00428) 04/15/1992 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Well water analysis report AVXPRIV00180- Hargrave Employee); AVXPRIV00182 Prager, Joan (AVX); (and (AVXRED00429- others at AVX) AVXRED00430) 07/00/1993 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes and attachment AVXPRIV00183 Hargrave Law Firm concerning impressions of counsel (AVXRED00431- Employee) AVXRED00435) 04/15/1992 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling report AVXPRIV00184- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00186 Employee); Prager, Joan (AVXRED00436- (AVX) AVXRED00437) 11/01/1995 Witmer, G. Robert Ford, Libby (Nixon Risk assessment memorandum AVXPRIV00187- (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm concerning impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00188 Lawyer); Law Firm Employee) Consultant; Prager, Joan (AVX) 11/01/1995 Witmer, G. Robert Ford, Libby (Nixon Risk assessment report with AVXPRIV00189- (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm privileged notes by counsel AVXPRIV00203 Lawyer); Law Firm Employee) concerning mental impressions Consultant; Prager, Joan (Draft) (AVX) 08/29/1995 Witmer, G. Robert Ford, Libby (Nixon Risk assessment memorandum with AVXPRIV00204- (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm privileged notes by counsel AVXPRIV00231 Lawyer); Law Firm Employee) concerning mental impressions Consultant; Prager, Joan (Draft) (AVX) 07/12/1995 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Risk assessment correspondence AVXPRIV00232 Hargrave Law Firm Employee); Prager, Joan (AVX) 09/08/1995 Witmer, G. Robert Ford, Libby (Nixon Risk assessment correspondence AVXPRIV00233 (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm Lawyer); Muraco, Employee) Debbie (Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Employee); Law Firm Consultant; Prager, Joan (AVX) 07/18/1995 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Information regarding law firm AVXPRIV00234 Hargrave Law Firm consultant (AVXRED00438- Employee) AVXRED00439) 09/08/1995 AVX Corporation Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00235 Hargrave Law Firm impressions of counsel Employee) 10/06/1995 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Risk assessment report with AVXPRIV00236- Hargrave Law Firm privileged notes by counsel AVXPRIV00260 Employee); Prager, Joan concerning mental impressions (AVX) (Draft) 07/12/1995 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Risk assessment report (Draft) AVXPRIV00261- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00294 Employee); Prager, Joan (AVX) 02/03/1994 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling report AVXPRIV00295- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00297 Employee) 11/13/1990 Witmer, G. Robert Law Firm Consultant Soil gas and groundwater sampling AVXPRIV00298- (Nixon Hargrave correspondence AVXPRIV00304 Lawyer); Ford, Libby (Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Employee) 11/14/1990 Witmer, G. Robert Law Firm Consultant Soil gas and groundwater sampling AVXPRIV00305- (Nixon Hargrave correspondence AVXPRIV00308 Lawyer); Ford, Libby (Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Employee) 05/29/1991 AVX Corporation Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00309 Hargrave Law Firm impressions of counsel Employee) 09/30/1986 Walker, John (AVX) and Law Firm Consultant Water sampling data report AVXRED00440- others at AVX AVXRED00443 01/26/1987 Walker, John (AVX) and Law Firm Consultant Water sampling data report AVXRED00444- others at AVX AVXRED00448 03/14/1986 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Wastewater engineering report AVXRED00449- AVXRED00457 04/17/1986 Walker, John (AVX) and Law Firm Consultant Water sampling report AVXRED00458- others at AVX AVXRED00459 01/19/1989 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Groundwater characteristics AVXRED00460- Burgess Lawyer); Prager, sampling report AVXRED00469 Joan (AVX) and others at AVX 08/27/1987 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Groundwater study report AVXRED00470- Burgess Lawyer); Prager, AVXRED00478 Joan (AVX) and others at AVX 06/26/1987 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Water sampling report AVXPRIV00310 Burgess Lawyer); Prager, Joan (AVX) and others at AVX 06/29/1987 Walker, John (AVX) and Law Firm Consultant Wastewater sampling report AVXRED00479 others at AVX AVXRED00480 03/31/1987 Walker, John (AVX) and Law Firm Consultant Wastewater sampling report AVXRED00481- others at AVX AVXRED00483 03/31/1987 Walker, John (AVX) and Law Firm Consultant Water sampling report AVXRED00484- others at AVX AVXRED00488 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Groundwater distribution analysis AVXRED00489- AVXRED00491 06/14/1995 Prager, Joan (AVX) (and Law Firm Consultant Soil and groundwater report with AVXPRIV00311- others at AVX) privileged notes by counsel AVXPRIV00341 concerning mental impressions (Draft) 12/11/1984 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Soil and groundwater report AVXRED00492- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED00500 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 08/22/1984 Walker, John (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Water sampling report AVXRED00501- AVXRED00542 09/12/1984 Walker, John (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Wastewater analytical report AVXRED00543- AVXRED00544 12/19/1984 Walker, John (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Wastewater sampling AVXRED00545- correspondence AVXRED00546 09/12/1984 Walker, John (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Wastewater sampling AVXRED00547- correspondence AVXRED00553 01/00/1983 Wearstler, Terry (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater quality report AVXRED00554- AVXRED00557 02/00/1985 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Groundwater studies report AVXRED00558- AVXRED00562 06/20/1984 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling results AVXRED00563- AVXRED00565 03/08/1985 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Well pump correspondence AVXRED00566- AVXRED00567 07/24/1989 Prager, Joan (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater studies report AVXRED00568- AVXRED00581 08/02/1984 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Remedial action plan correspondence AVXRED00582- and others at AVX AVXRED00583 09/12/1983 Wearstler, Terry (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Analytical sampling report AVXRED00584- AVXRED00586 11/27/1984 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Prager, Joan (AVX) Soil and groundwater sampling AVXPRIV00342 Burgess Lawyer) correspondence 10/18/1984 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Soil and groundwater studies AVXRED00587 and others at AVX correspondence AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Groundwater summary report AVXRED00588- AVXRED00607 08/28/1989 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sample correspondence AVXRED00608 06/30/1986 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Remedial action correspondence AVXPRIV00343- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXPRIV00345 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 10/00/1989 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Groundwater assessment analysis AVXRED00609- AVXRED00622 03/00/1990 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Groundwater studies report AVXRED00623- AVXRED00644 11/16/1987 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Sampling data summary report AVXRED00645- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED00658 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 02/22/1988 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Sampling data summary report AVXRED00659- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED00671 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 04/06/1988 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Sampling data summary report AVXRED00672- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED00686 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 12/09/1991 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Typed notes concerning impressions AVXPRIV00346 Hargrave Law Firm of counsel Employee) 12/12/1991 Law Firm Consultant; Ford, Libby (Nixon Well survey correspondence AVXPRIV00347- Prager, Joan (AVX) Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00348 Employee) 12/20/1991 Law Firm Consultant; Ford, Libby (Nixon Monitoring well survey AVXPRIV00349- Prager, Joan (AVX) Hargrave Law Firm correspondence AVXPRIV00350 Employee) 12/20/1991 Law Firm Consultant Prager, Joan (AVX) Production well survey analysis AVXRED00687- AVXRED00689 01/14/1992 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Well pumping report with AVXPRIV00351- Hargrave Law Firm handwritten notes by counsel AVXPRIV00357 Employee); Prager, Joan concerning mental impressions (AVX) 08/13/1982 Anderson, C. (AVX) Walker, John (AVX) Environmental audit report AVXRED01519 08/16/1982 AVX Dept Managers Walker, John (AVX) Environmental audit report AVXRED01520 12/30/1991 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Groundwater assessment analysis AVXRED00690 12/31/1986 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Groundwater remediation summary AVXRED00691- Burgess Lawyer); Den report AVXRED00698 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 09/30/1986 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Groundwater studies sampling report AVXRED00699- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED00707 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 06/05/1986 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Groundwater studies report AVXRED00708- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED00714 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 03/18/1986 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Groundwater studies report AVXRED00715- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED00722 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 12/12/1985 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Water quality sampling data AVXRED00723- and others at AVX AVXRED00727 11/21/1985 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Groundwater studies report AVXRED00728- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED00734 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 03/27/1987 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Groundwater studies report AVXRED00735- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED00741 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 05/00/1987 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Prager, Joan (AVX) Sampling program correspondence AVXPRIV00358- Burgess Lawyer) AVXPRIV00359 06/21/1989 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater studies report AVXRED00742- AVXRED00756 04/18/1990 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater studies report AVXRED00757- and others at AVX AVXRED00779 01/10/1992 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling AVXPRIV00360- Hargrave Law Firm correspondence AVXPRIV00361 Employee); Prager, Joan (AVXRED00780- (AVX) AVXRED00937)) 07/23/1992 Ford, Libby (Nixon Witmer, G. Robert Sampling result report AVXPRIV00362 Hargrave Law Firm (Nixon Hargrave Employee); Prager, Joan Lawyer) (AVX) 01/14/1992 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Production well analysis AVXPRIV00363- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00365 Employee) 09/25/1992 Ford, Libby (Nixon Witmer, G. Robert Monitoring well correspondence AVXPRIV00365. Hargrave Law Firm (Nixon Hargrave 01 — Employee); Prager, Joan Lawyer) AVXPRIV00365. (AVX) 02 04/16/1993 AVX Corporation Witmer, G. Robert Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00366 (Nixon Hargrave impressions of counsel Lawyer) 10/25/1996 Blue, Larry (AVX); Law Ford, Libby (Nixon Consent order correspondence AVXPRIV00367- Firm Consultant Hargrave Law Firm concerning impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00369 Employee) 10/26/1996 Blue, Larry (AVX) and Hull, Ronald (Nixon Consent order correspondence AVXPRIV00370- others at AVX Hargrave Law Firm concerning impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00381 Employee) 03/04/1996 Ford, Libby (Nixon Prager, Joan (AVX) Sediment sampling correspondence AVXPRIV00382- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00383 Employee) 02/00/1991 Nixon Hargrave Law Law Firm Consultant Groundwater quality conditions AVXPRIV00384- Firm report (draft) AVXPRIV00444 04/02/1991 AVX Corporation Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00445- Hargrave Law Firm impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00448 Employee) 10/00/1991 Nixon Hargrave Law Law Firm Consultant Installation and testing report AVXPRIV00449- Firm AVXPRIV00495 01/18/1993 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling analysis AVXPRIV00496- Hargrave Law Firm report AVXPRIV00502 Employee) 12/00/1982 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Preliminary engineering groundwater AVXPRIV00503- report — Unrelated to Myrtle Beach AVXPRIV00584 facility 06/08/1989 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Soil and water investigation report AVXRED00938- and others at AVX AVXRED00957 02/28/1994 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling and analysis AVXPRIV00585- Hargrave Law Firm report AVXPRIV00587 Employee) 08/16/1994 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling and analysis AVXPRIV00588 Hargrave Law Firm report Employee); Prager, Joan (AVX) 10/30/1992 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater analysis report (draft) AVXPRIV00589- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00595 Employee) 00/00/1982 File Walker, John (AVX) Environmental audit report AVXRED00958- and others at AVX AVXRED00974 08/24/1982 Marshall, William AVX Consultant Solvent analysis summary AVXRED00975- (AVX) and others at AVXRED01053 AVX 06/26/1985 AVX Corporation Environmental evaluation summary AVXRED01054- AVXRED01059 12/01/1984 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Generator requirements report AVXRED01060- AVXRED01118 07/05/1984 AVX Corporation Environmental evaluation summary AVXRED01119- AVXRED01146 12/10/1992 Law Firm Consultant; Ford, Libby (Nixon Comments from law firm on AVXPRIV00596- Witmer, Robert G. Hargrave Law Firm sampling report AVXPRIV00598 (Nixon Hargrave Employee) Lawyer); Prager, Joan (AVX) 12/17/1991 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Well survey analysis AVXPRIV00599- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00601 Employee) 01/16/1992 AVX Corporation AVX Corporation Handwritten notes relating to AVXPRIV00602 impressions of counsel 03/06/1992 AVX Corporation Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00603- Hargrave Employee) impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00604 01/24/1996 Witmer, G. Robert Ford, Libby (Nixon Water sampling results memorandum AVXPRIV00605- (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm concerning impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00621 Lawyer); Prager, Joan Employee) (AVX) 12/21/1995 Witmer, G. Robert Ford, Libby (Nixon Sampling data correspondence and AVXPRIV00622- (Nixon Hargrave Hargrave Law Firm conference memorandum concerning AVXPRIV00632 Lawyer); Law Firm Employee) mental impressions of law firm Consultant; Oldland, Dennis (AVX) and others at AVX 12/01/1995 AVX Corporation Witmer, G, Robert Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00633 (Nixon Hargrave impressions of counsel Lawyer) 10/05/1995 Prager, Joan (AVX); Ford, Libby (Nixon Stormwater sampling results AVXPRIV00634- Witmer, Robert G. Hargrave Law Firm memorandum AVXPRIV00637 (Nixon Hargrave lawyer) Employee) (AVXRED01147- AVXRED01163) 05/19/0000 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Proposed remediation plan analysis AVXPRIV00638- Hargrave Law Firm concerning impressions of law firm AVXPRIV00641 Employee) 05/31/1995 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Site summary report concerning AVXPRIV00642- Hargrave Law Firm impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00650 Employee) AVX Corporation Witmer, G. Robert Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00651 (Nixon Hargrave impressions of counsel Lawyer) 05/16/1995 AVX Corporation Nixon Hargrave Law Draft Outline concerning impressions AVXPRIV00652- Firm of counsel AVXPRIV00658 06/02/1995 Prager, Joan (AVX) Witmer, G. Robert Action list memorandum AVXPRIV00659- (Nixon Hargrave AVXPRIV00660 Lawyer) AVX Corporation Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00661- Hargrave Law Firm impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00665 Employee) AVX Corporation Garcia, R. (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00666- Hargrave Lawyer) impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00668 06/08/1995 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Monitoring well correspondence AVXPRIV00669- Hargrave Law Firm (Draft) AVXPRIV00670 Employee) 06/14/1995 Prager, Joan (AVX) and Law Firm Consultant Monitoring well correspondence AVXPRIV00671- others at AVX (Draft) AVXPRIV00676 06/13/1995 Law Firm Consultant; Ford, Libby (Nixon Groundwater investigation AVXPRIV00677- Prager, Joan (AVX) Hargrave Law Firm correspondence with mental AVXPRIV00679 Employee) impressions of law firm 06/14/1995 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Groundwater sampling AVXPRIV00680 Hargrave Law Firm correspondence Employee) 06/14/1995 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Site summary report analysis AVXPRIV00681- Hargrave Law Firm concerning impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00699 Employee) (draft) 09/21/1989 Prager, Joan (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater estimate AVXRED01164- correspondence AVXRED01167 06/07/1995 Law Firm Consultant Ford, Libby (Nixon Groundwater conditions AVXPRIV00700- Hargrave Law Firm memorandum concerning AVXPRIV00706 Employee) impressions of law firm 01/20/1982 Bayer, J. (AVX) and Walker, John (AVX) Environmental audit report AVXRED01168- others at AVX AVXRED01170 06/14/1995 AVX Corporation Nixon Hargrave Law Groundwater conditions AVXPRIV00707 Firm memorandum containing law firm opinions 06/13/1995 Prager, Joan (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater conditions AVXPRIV00708- memorandum (draft) concerning AVXPRIV00730 mental impressions 06/06/1995 AVX Corporation Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRJV00731- Hargrave Employee) impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00737 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Groundwater conditions AVXPRIV00737.01 memorandum (partial page) 03/05/1990 AVX Corporation Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00738- Hargrave Employee) impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00739 11/00/1990 Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Consultant Soil gas and groundwater sampling AVXPRIV00740- work plan report AVXPRIV00746 11/00/1990 Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Consultant Soil gas and groundwater sampling AVXPRIV00747- work plan report AVXPRIV00753 08/10/1990 AVX Corporation Ford, Libby (Nixon Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00754- Hargrave) impressions of counsel AVXPRIV00757 AVX Corporation Nixon Hargrave Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00758 impressions of counsel AVX Corporation Nixon Hargrave Handwritten notes concerning AVXPRIV00759 impressions of counsel 06/00/1995 Ford, Libby (Nixon Prager, Joan (AVX Draft Environmental summary report AVXPRIV00760- Hargrave Law Firm); and Corporation) with mental impressions AVXPRIV00785 Law Firm Consultant 06/00/1995 Ford, Libby (Nixon Prager, Joan (AVX Environmental summary report with AVXPRIV00786- Hargrave Law Firm); and Corporation) notes for counsel and consultant with AVXPRIV00891 Law Firm Consultant mental impressions (Draft) 12/01/1995 Ford, Libby (Nixon Prager, Joan (AVX) Environmental report analysis with AVXPRIV00892- Hargrave Law Firm mental impressions AVXPRIV00897 Employee) 10/30/1992 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling report AVXPRIV00898- Hargrave Law Firm summary (draft) with mental AVXPRIV00987 Employee) impressions 03/13/1991 Prager, Joan (AVX) Witmer, G. Robert Environmental report correspondence AVXPRIV00988 (Nixon Hargrave Lawyer) 04/26/1991 Witmer, G. Robert Law Firm Consultant Groundwater quality conditions AVXPRIV00989- (Nixon Hargrave correspondence AVXPRIV00990 Lawyer); Ford, Libby (Nixon Hargrave Law Firm Employee); Prager, Joan (AVX) 07/19/1989 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater investigation sampling AVXRED01171- report AVXRED01183 01/18/1993 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Production well analysis report AVXPRIV00991- Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV00997 Employee) 11/16/1987 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater analysis data AVXRED01184- and others at AVX correspondence AVXRED01198 09/16/1985 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater analysis data AVXRED01199- and others at AVX correspondence AVXRED01202 09/16/1985 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater analysis data AVXRED01203- and others at AVX correspondence AVXRED01206 03/21/1985 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Groundwater analysis data AVXPRIV00998 Burgess Lawyer); Den correspondence Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 03/21/1985 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Groundwater analysis data AVXRED01207- Burgess Lawyer); Den correspondence AVXRED01212 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 03/21/1985 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Monitoring well sampling report AVXRED01213- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED01219 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 12/11/1984 Wyche, Bradford (Wyche Law Firm Consultant Monitoring well sampling report AVXRED01220- Burgess Lawyer); Den AVXRED01228 Braven, Gary (AVX) and others at AVX 10/18/1984 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Soil and groundwater studies AVXPRIV00999 and others at AVX correspondence 01/29/1993 Prager, Joan (AVX) Ford, Libby (Nixon Sampling field activity AVXPRIV01000 Hargrave Law Firm correspondence Employee) 09/08/1994 Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Groundwater sampling report (Draft) AVXPRIV01001- Hargrave Law Firm with mental impressions AVXPRIV1003 Employee) (AVXRED01229- AVXRED01336) 10/18/1982 Wearstler, Terry (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater investigation proposal AVXRED01337- AVXRED01346 AVX Corporation AVX Law Firm Typewritten notes concerning AVXPRIV01004 impressions of counsel 12/2/1985 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Environmental Audit AVXRED01354- AVXRED01366 11/21/1984 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Typed notes concerning impressions AVXRED01367- of counsel AVXRED01368 07/11/1984 Dexter, V. (AVX) and Taylor, John D. (AVX) Material handling memorandum AVXRED01369- others at AVX AVXRED01370 06/22/1984 Dixon, Jim (AVX) Prager, Joan (AVX) Well Samplings AVXRED01371- AVXRED01374 11/08/1984 Prager, Joan (AVX) Den Braven, Gary Groundwater sampling AVXRED01375 (AVX) correspondence 08/06/1984 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Walker, John (AVX); Environmental Audit Reports; Soil AVXRED01347- Analysis AVXRED01353 12/03/1982 Wearstler, Terry (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Groundwater study evaluation AVXRED01376- AVXRED01382 01/00/1986 AVX Corporation Law Firm Consultant Groundwater studies report AVXRED01383- AVXRED01387 04/20/1983 Wyche, Bradford Law Firm Consultant Groundwater study evaluation AVXRED01388- (Wyche, Burgess AVXRED01427 Lawyer); Prager, Joan (AVX) 03/28/1983 Wearstler, Terry (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Preliminary engineering report AVXRED01428- AVXRED01478 06/06/1984 Insurance Company Prager, Joan (AVX) Renewal correspondence AVXRED01479- AVXRED01481 04/20/1984 AVX Corporation Insurance Company Renewal report AVXRED01482- AVXRED01507 09/30/1985 Prager, Joan (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Soil analysis report AVXRED01508- AVXRED01509 08/19/1982 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Walker, John (AVX) Environmental audit report AVXRED01510 AVXRED01511 09/02/1982 Anderson, C. (AVX) Walker, John (AVX) Environmental audit report AVXRED01512- AVXRED01513 11/29/1982 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Walker, John (AVX) Environmental audit report AVXRED01514- AVXRED01516 07/01/1982 Walker, John (AVX) and Dixon, Jim (AVX) Environmental audit report AVXRED01517- others at AVX AVXRED01518 11/08/1983 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Walker, John (AVX) Environmental audit report AVXRED01521- AVXRED01523 12/22/1986 Den Braven, Gary (AVX) Law Firm Consultant Soil analysis correspondence AVXRED01524 1/16/1991 Prager, Joan (AVX Karowe, Julie (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Invoice AVXPRIV01005 Corporation) Hargrave Law Firm) (AVX's Counsel) 4/8/1991 Witmer, G. Robert Prager, Joan (AVX Law Firm Consultant Invoice AVXPRIV01006 (Nixon Hargrave Corporation) Lawyer) (AVX's Counsel) 5/3/1991 Witmer, G. Robert Law Firm Consultant Law Firm Consultant Invoice AVXPRIV01007 — (Nixon Hargrave working with AVX's AVXPRIV01014 Lawyer) (AVX's Counsel Counsel) 4/1//1991 Witmer, G. Robert Law Firm Consultant Law Firm Consultant Invoice AVXPRIV01015 — (Nixon Hargrave working with AVX's AVXPRIV01017 Lawyer) (AVX's Counsel Counsel) 4/1//1991 Witmer, G. Robert Law Firm Consultant Law Firm Consultant Invoice AVXPRIV01018 — (Nixon Hargrave working with AVX's AVXPRIV01023 Lawyer) (AVX's Counsel Counsel) 6/7/1991 Law Firm Consultant Ford, Libby (Nixon Law Firm Consultant Invoice AVXPRIV01024 — working with AVX's Hargrave Law Firm AVXPRIV01025 Counsel; Prager, Joan Employee) (AVX's (AVX); Witmer, Robert Counsel) G. (Nixon Hargrave Law Firm)

AVX Corporation's Log of Additional Protected Documents

No. Document 1. Documents in AVX's file prepared by AVX Corporation's counsel, Wyche Burgess and communications between AVX Corporation and its counsel, Wyche, Burgess. 2. Documents in AVX's file prepared by AVX Corporation's counsel, Nixon Hargrave and communications between AVX Corporation and its counsel, Nixon Hargrave (formerly Nixon Peabody). 3. Documents in AVX's file prepared by AVX Corporation's counsel, Parker Poe Adams Bernstein LLP and communications between AVX Corporation and its counsel, Parker Poe Adams Bernstein LLP. 4. Communications regarding law firm consultant invoices. AVX will provide invoices of response costs for which it seeks recovery from Horry Land. AVX's privilege log also includes the above four general categories of documents. The documents in the first three categories are those prepared by AVX's three law firms and documents between AVX and its counsel. As AVX understands, AVX and Horry Land are in agreement that all documents involving the law firm of Parker Poe Adams Bernstein are protected. As AVX also understands, AVX and Horry Land are also in agreement that all documents involving communications between the law firms of Wyche, Burgess or Nixon Hargrave or Nixon Peabody, on one hand, and AVX, on the other, are protected. As AVX understands, AVX and Horry Land are also in agreement that all internal law firm communications are protected. The fourth general category concerns communications between AVX's legal counsel, AVX, and the law firm consultant concerning invoices and related issues. There are many of these communications regarding the same basic concept. So as not to burden the Court with a significant amount of additional paper, AVX has provided the Court a sampling of the documents AVX contends are protected concerning invoices and related issues. If the Court concludes that this category on the privilege log should be produced, AVX will produce all documents in this category to Horry Land (subject to all appeals affirming such an order). In addition, if the Court wishes for AVX to provide all of the documents in this category to the Court for the Court's in camera review, AVX is happy to do so. Given that the concept is the same, it seemed to be more efficient not to burden the Court with additional documents since resolution of objections concerning individual documents provided to the Court for in camera review on the log will resolve issues concerning this entire category.

This 6th day of October, 2010.

AVX CORPORATION v. HORRY LAND COMPANY, INC.

Summary

Opinion

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

II. DISCUSSION

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS SO ORDERED.

AVX CORPORATION'S LOG OF PROTECTED DOCUMENTS WITH BATES NUMBERS

AVX Corporation's Log of Protected Documents with Bates Numbers

AVX Corporation's Log of Additional Protected Documents

AVX CORPORATION v. HORRY LAND COMPANY, INC.

AVX CORPORATION v. HORRY LAND COMPANY, INC.

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

AVX CORPORATION v. HORRY LAND COMPANY, INC.

Summary

Opinion

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

II. DISCUSSION

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS SO ORDERED.

AVX CORPORATION'S LOG OF PROTECTED DOCUMENTS WITH BATES NUMBERS

AVX Corporation's Log of Protected Documents with Bates Numbers

AVX Corporation's Log of Additional Protected Documents

AVX CORPORATION v. HORRY LAND COMPANY, INC.

AVX CORPORATION v. HORRY LAND COMPANY, INC.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations